[88732] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: a radical proposal (Re: protocols that don't meet the need...)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Provo)
Wed Feb 15 23:25:43 2006
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:24:36 -0500
From: Joe Provo <nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net>
To: nanog@merit.edu
Reply-To: nanog-post@rsuc.gweep.net
In-Reply-To: <20060215184521.F651@iama.hypergeek.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Wed, Feb 15, 2006 at 06:51:16PM -0800, John A. Kilpatrick wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Feb 2006, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
>
> >Stop. Examine. Think. Then respond.
Something about history repeating applies. those who weren't around
then should re-visit tli's ISPAC proposal from 96 and the associated
discussion on both nanog and cidrd archives before regurgitating it.
Flatly, there are economic pressures to carry deaggregates and they
have undermined/reversed the progress from cidr. Solve that
[approaches other than longest-match always wins] or else yes the
issue will carry to v6. This is one aspect of the "get ietf to
re-examine routing" folks at the sessions were on about. Then we
get back to "the ietf is composed of vendors who want to see your
capital dollars on a recurring basis" sub-topic...
Joe
--
RSUC / GweepNet / Spunk / FnB / Usenix / SAGE
